"It is an illusion to runners that running at or faster than race pace is needed to improve in races. A total illusion!"

It took a leap of faith, but he is absolutely right

Well Jim I will try just about anything to get to sub 20 since I am running 35 miles a week for 6 months and it isn't getting me there.

My 80 second lap on Tuesday shocked me because I was aiming for 90 (thats what I thought I was running..not quite mile pace). It was 80 seconds or 5:20 mile pace and it really wasn't that fast.

I keep saying sub 20 runners do not need speed. Now that I know what 16:30 five k pace is like (for one lap) that isn't that fast either (at only 1 lap I could run and 80 second lap every day with ease). Sub 20 runners need endurance true and I have that running almost 800 miles this year with 9-10 mile long runs.

What am I missing? The treadmill feeds me a perfect pace and I can nail the treadmill runs nearly every time. 5 X 1600 at 6:57 sounds pretty easy to me. I would love to try that. What is the rest period between intervals here?

There was a poster called Kudzu Runner on here though that said you must run a few percent of the time at a notch faster than race pace. Just so you test the body out and work out the kinks so you know your pace when you are going too fast for your ability.

quote:Originally posted by angrek: I'll have to look at my garmin but I'm pretty sure that I fit into this category last year. I was toying with the idea of speed work and was just testing the water to see what I could do. I ran 6 x 400 all 70-75 (I think one was a 68) and my 5K time at the time was 22:00 flat. I attribute it to asthma, lack of endurance/aerobic base, only running around 20 miles a week and maybe just being a better short distance runner with decent power. (ex: 2 days later I tried 100's and I think I did 20 x 100 mostly 14's and 15's (1 or two 16's and a 13) with maybe...10-20 seconds rest? I'd have to look...but I felt like I could have done those all day long though) I've always wanted to ask someone what they thought about the disparity between my 400 and 5K times (Heck, McMillan's 5K time for a 14 second 100 runner is 16:28 and I train for the 5K, not the 100...) and what I should do with my training. Just seemed like I should be much faster. Figured the answer I would get would be to 'run farther' so I didn't ask.

I can run a 100 meter dash in 15 seconds and then I am tired and want to quit. But like you the 15 second time I am sure translates to well below a 19:00 5k runner. I think mcmillan says the shorter distances do not translate as well. But I think I am just a better speed runner than distance runner. Looks like you have tremendous speedwork.

posted Jun-13-2007 03:17 PM
A recent quote by Steve Scott, American record holder in the mile:

"During my career, the most important aspect of my training regime was strength. You can pend the rest of your life working on speed and make little progress, but if you spend the rest of your running career working on strength, you’ll always continue to improve. Improvements are also achieved by increasing your endurance. What do I mean by strength or endurance? Mileage, Mileage, Mileage! The more miles you can run, the stronger you will be."

That quote seems pretty consistent with Tinman's philosophy on training.

If you get strong enough, it only takes a relatively small amount of harder, faster running to bring you to a peak. To make it the primary focus is probably as mistake. I will soon start running some faster stuff for a brief period, so I don't want to sound like a hypocrite if I get caught doing it Most of gains have come from mileage and threshold type workouts but speed can't be competely ignored.

Regarding those interval workouts, there are all kinds of exceptions, depending on what phase of your training you are in, if it's close to a race, etc., but I would usually take a 200-meter recovery jog. This works out to 70-75 seconds. Tinman has said 1 minute per K for this type of workout. I tend to take the same 200 jog whether I'm running 1000's, 1200's, or 1600's.

Is there any reason why you have to do so much of your training on the treadmill? I think they give you a good workout, but I would be weary of the times and distances. They are probably close, but just a small amount off can make a big difference in pace calculations. Personally, I only trust times run on a track or certified road course and rarely run on the mill.

35 mpw should be enough for you to break 20, but it sure wouldn't hurt if you could do more. Just an extra 10-15 miles a week could make a big difference. It sounds like you have plenty of speed.

P.S. I grew up in Flint, Michigan before moving west in my late 20's (I'm 61 now). I went back a few times and ran the Crim 10 mile, but the last time was in 1990 when I was 44.

Regarding those interval workouts, there are all kinds of exceptions, depending on what phase of your training you are in, if it's close to a race, etc., but I would usually take a 200-meter recovery jog. This works out to 70-75 seconds. Tinman has said 1 minute per K for this type of workout. I tend to take the same 200 jog whether I'm running 1000's, 1200's, or 1600's.

Is there any reason why you have to do so much of your training on the treadmill? I think they give you a good workout, but I would be weary of the times and distances. They are probably close, but just a small amount off can make a big difference in pace calculations. Personally, I only trust times run on a track or certified road course and rarely run on the mill.

35 mpw should be enough for you to break 20, but it sure wouldn't hurt if you could do more. Just an extra 10-15 miles a week could make a big difference. It sounds like you have plenty of speed.

P.S. I grew up in Flint, Michigan before moving west in my late 20's (I'm 61 now). I went back a few times and ran the Crim 10 mile, but the last time was in 1990 when I was 44.

Well my muscles hurt from yesterdays attempted track workout so I probably should have took an off day but I am stubborn so I did the 5 x 1000 meter on the treadmill (too hot to do it outside) I have much more confidence in the treadmill as I don't start out too fast that way.

I did 5 intervals in 4:05, 4:04, 4:04, 4:05 and 4:05. I waited for my HR to get down to 120 to do the next interval. This took about 2:30-3:00 rest.

I run on the treadmill because I am used to it and don't have to leave home. The past couple months I have set it to 1% grade. In January I ran a 19:14 5k with a 0% grade on the treadmill which translates to a 20:02 5k outdoors. I think that is pretty much correct. I run about 5-7 miles a week outdoors only.

I will run a 5k test run this weekend at night and if I dont see much improvement I may add a few morning runs in the week to add extra mileage.

posted Jun-14-2007 07:05 PM
I know this isn't entirely relevant, but there's so much Michigan-ness floating around. Anyone have any running-related suggestions for me? I'll be in Grand Rapids July 27 and August 4/5, and then up on Big Platte Lake between those two dates.

I was going to wait and post my 400 split times -- ironically, our speed workout this week, too -- on Sunday, but here they are. We did 400 recoveries, though.

1:29, 1:24, 1:21, 1:21, 1:25, 1:30, 1:26, 1:33.

A little fast -- I was running with somebody else, and trying to push pretty hard. Would have been happy with 1:30-1:35. But, I thought it was a pretty good workout.

Just 9 miles so far this week, scheduled for 3 tonight, 5k Saturday (hoping for 20:30-ish, depending on the course; might be hilly), 8-10 miles on Sunday.

posted Jun-14-2007 09:52 PM
Tuesdays 6x400's were 1:34, 1:32, and 1:30 exact for the last 4 reps. I did a mile warm up and a mile cool down. How much should I take for recovery in between each rep? Today's 20 minute tempo I squeezed in 2.86 miles which is an improvement over last weeks 2.76 so I am happy with that. I still feel 20 just may not be in the cards for me until I can drop say 15 lbs. Weighed 233 this morning.

quote:Originally posted by danimal97tj:Tuesdays 6x400's were 1:34, 1:32, and 1:30 exact for the last 4 reps. I did a mile warm up and a mile cool down. How much should I take for recovery in between each rep? Today's 20 minute tempo I squeezed in 2.86 miles which is an improvement over last weeks 2.76 so I am happy with that. I still feel 20 just may not be in the cards for me until I can drop say 15 lbs. Weighed 233 this morning.

I concur with Jim that longer intervals are better for our quest to sub-20 5k. 400m repeats should be done late in your training cycles. 800m, 1k, 3/4 mile or mile repeats are better most of the time.

I am one of those who are relatively better in short distance so running 80 to 85 sec repeats is easy for me but I am still far away from sub-20 5k.

I do shoot for 20:30 or so in my upcoming 5k. I have increased my mileage to 50+ with longer steadier tempo runs and 6x1k or 5 x3/4 mile intervals

posted Jun-16-2007 08:58 AM
At 11pm last night I attempted to beat 20 again outside on the roads/sidewalks. I have my own 5k route measured by car odometer and it is pretty accurate whenever I measure it so while not certified exactly 5k it is quite close.

It consists of one loop of 3.05 miles then another 300 feet to the finish. It was dark and no moon so I was concerned about stepping on a stick and twisting my ankle but with it going to be so hot (90 degrees Saturday) I decided to attempt it since I was feeling very good. The temp last night was 70 degrees at 11pm with no wind.

I carried a stopwatch and hit the lap button every half mile. I did not look at my times until after I finished the 5k run.

I started off what for me is quite strong. I wanted a 6:10 mile. I was on the verge of uncomfortable running but I kept pushing just into uncomfortbale as I was going to run as hard as I could for as long as I could. It was tough the 1st quarter mile but then my breathing caught up with me. Some kdis on bikes almost mowed me down on the sidewalk as I couldnt see them coming until they were 100 feet ahead of me. I quick went left just as they went the same way and we just missed a headon collision.

At a mile I still felt quite good. It was getting tiring in mile 2 but I kept pushing hard trying to go as long as I could at this speed. Nearing 2 miles I still felt good. Just past 2 miles it hurt some but I reached back and tried not to think of the last 1/2 mile of pain. Up the only bad hill I ran and slowed some but not terribly. I started my last 1/2 mile and went into uncomfortable running. Down the last hill to the 3 mile mark I got some momentum going. I MUST be close to 20 I thought I haven't slowed much at all this run.

I ran the last tenth and it was hard to get going but the last 200 feet I found that final gear and passed the finish exhausted. A great run...Now to see my times.

1/2 mile splits3:103:18 1st mile 6:28

3:213:24 2nd mile 6:45

3:29 (the uphill)3:12 3rd mile 6:41

0:33 last tenth

TOTAL TIME 20:27

Man I was dissapointed again. Seems like I shaved as many seconds as I could but still am 27 seconds away. But after rethinking I realize that is my 2nd best time ever and IS very close to 20. I am going to have to put in some more miles to reach down and get the few extra seconds I need.

It seems like I started too fast as my times kept getting slower and slower per half mile. But it was an experiment of sorts to see if the 3%, 6% faster than race paces in mile one that Runners World call for would work for me. It seems like this is not my kind of running.

A couple weeks ago I ran this same course with 6:35 opening mile, 6:34 second mile splits for 13:09 (4 seconds faster than today)...so my best opening mile may be between 6:32-6:35.

posted Jun-16-2007 09:19 AM
I have not posted on this thread in awhile, but I'm happy to report that I broke through with a 19:50 last Sunday, my fastest 5K in five years! It was a cool (60's), overcast morning on a flat course where people seem to run fast times. My compulsiveness/paranoia forced me to check the course for accuracy with my Garmin (dead on 3.11) and withsatellite mapping sites, which concurred.

Started out at what felt like a pretty quick pace. (Has anyone seen the reasearch that a slightly faster first mile produces a faster overall 5K time, despite the slight slowdown that results?) Felt like 6:10-6:15, but it turned out to be 6:24. Found the mental and physical stamina to continue to push through the second mile, which I got to in 12:48 (another 6:24). At that point, I thought a sub-20 was gone, but somehow I managed to continue to work hard through the third mile. When I got to a point that I figured was roughly a half mile from the finish, I used my last bit of adrenaline to find the strength to bear down. My reward was that for the first time in ages, I saw the the clock read 19:xx as I crossed the finish line!

Some interesting notes and suggestions on this thread.MichiganFlyer, from my experience, I think you are going to have a hard time producing a personal best in a solo timetrial. I understand how you can enjoy the precision of the track, with its constant feedback on your pace. Can you find a low-key track race in your area? Having other people to run with will definitely help you to reach your goals.

Jim, I also consult with Tinman. Not only am I running faster at age 55, as noted above, but I'm feeling smoother and stronger than I have in a long time. I should admit that I probably do my workouts a little faster than he would like, often using an optimistic estimate of my current fitness.I'm impressed that at age 61 you have run 11 consecutivesub-20's. Do you feel some performance pressure when you step on the line? After the effort it took to squeeze out a sub-20 last week, I was having mixed feelings about running another one this Monday night. How do you stay psyched up for succesive hard efforts?

For those who have asked about workouts, one I like to do as I get late into my racing season is 10 x 500m. @ 5K goal pace w/ short rests. Got that one from Mark Wetmore and Adam Goucher. (Not directly, I read about it.) I feel it prepares me mentally and physically to race strongly. I did it averaging 1:57 per 500 a couple of weeks ago (10 x 1:57 = 19:30, get it?) w/ 60 second jog recoveries. Last week I ran the same times, but cut the recoveries to 45 seconds after the first four. Ideally, one could get the recoveries down to 30-45 seconds and be confident and ready to roll on race day.

posted Jun-16-2007 02:57 PM
Alright, I did pretty good today. It has been sweltering hot - 90 every day - so it's been hard to get out as much as I'd like.

Race at 8:30 this morning, so it was already 85 and we were running directly into the sun. Out-and-back course, apparently with mile markers painted on the road, but I missed them both. My shoes and the paint are both orange, and I was more focused on the girl ahead of me. So, no idea what my splits were, but I think they were pretty consistent. (For once.) On the way out I had 10:11 (although I didn't look at it at the time) and on the way back 10:30. So a little slower on the second half, which is a bummer, but it was hot. I was dripping.

And man, it was hilly. Two big hills going out -- which means two big hills coming back.

So, 20:41 total - a 16 second PR from a few weeks ago. I'm inching closer. I think I'm pretty close on the speed, but I have to work on pace so I don't go out too fast. More track, more tempo.

Going for 9 or 10 miles tomorrow.

Oh, and my track workouts are whatever our "leader" comes up with. We do a lot of 800s, but a nice mix of 400s, 800s, 1200s and sometimes 200s. We've done 500s, too. Varying recoveries. A lot of it depends on the heat, and on who is training for what races. We also do a lot of reps -- usually we're on the track for at least 5 miles, not including warm ups and cool downs.

...and good pacing too, I can't believe how many people have been influenced by that RW article about going out 3%-6% faster than goal pace. Personally, I'm not buying it. They can always do a study that will prove their point. If that was the way to go, the great majority of records wouldn't have been set with virtually even pacing. I'm curious as to how you warmed up before the race. Usually when the first mile feels faster than what your watch says it's because the warmup wasn't thorough enough.

I agree with you that Michigan Flyer will have a tough time producing a personal best in a solo time trial. For me it would be impossible, and I've done quite a few them over the years. Btw, I only have 8 straight sub-20's (not 11) and they have all been races. I think the fastest I've gone in practice was 20:34 or something like that. As far as pressure I don't know that I feel any of that, but I am always nervous before a race. Rarely do a get a good night's sleep before one, even though I have had well over 400. Staying psyched up for successive hard efforts is no problem if they are both important. I really don't have a formula for doing it.

Although I'm not in contact with Tinman as much as I used to be, I am still strongly influenced by his methods. He is on record as saying that he is "not a big fan of goal pace training" and I have followed his advice in that regard. If you race regularly, which I do, it is really not necessary. Mark Wetmore is a great coach and Goucher is a great runner, so I know they didn't just pick that workout out of thin air. However, it sounds very close to a 5k race in itself. I would think it more useful during a period where you have plenty of space between races. I think we always have to be careful when we read about these workouts, etc. as to where they fit into an overall program.

And again, nice race. I'm sure there will be further improvement ahead for you.

quote:Originally posted by Jim24315: I'm curious as to how you warmed up before the race. Usually when the first mile feels faster than what your watch says it's because the warmup wasn't thorough enough.

I agree with you that Michigan Flyer will have a tough time producing a personal best in a solo time trial. For me it would be impossible, and I've done quite a few them over the years.

[This message has been edited by Jim24315 (edited Jun-16-2007).]

Well I hope old xcountry chimes in but I will speak for myself. Last night I only ran 3/4 mile warmup then ran 3 short striders so I had less than a mile warmup. You could be correct that a short warmup makes it seem like you are running faster in the race when you are not.

Well I ran a 20:28 on this course a few weeks ago and a 20:27 last night. My best time in a race is 20:22 so the times usually are pretty similar for me when training solo or racing. I don't know why, perhaps because my training runs are when temps are good and I feel good. Races have set times and dates so you must run them even if temps are 90 degrees.

posted Jun-16-2007 10:32 PM
Running 6% faster than average pace on the first mile is bad race strategy. If I saw the study referenced it would be easy to pick apart and find flaws.

An example:

K. Bekele ran 12:37 and change for his world record 5k. That's 4:03 high per mile or 4:02 low per 1600m. Subtract 6% from that and he has to pass the mile in 3:49 or the 1600m in 3:47. Anyone who knows track realizes that absolutely ridiculous. That's what he can run in an all-out mile or within a second or two. No way in the world he'd be able to continue running well after that, let alone for an entire 5k!!

quote:Moderately trained runners may benefit from a faster start because they're probably not starting fast enough in the first place. The researchers suggest that their study findings are probably most applicable to competitive open and master's division runners, not elites who already know how best to push themselves right from the gun or beginners who totally lack a sense of pacing. And even competitive runners shouldn't try the go-out-fast strategy in longer races, when other variables become more important than first-mile pace--like, say, finishing another 25.2 miles.

It is kind of important you read that part, too.

And here's why they think it worked ...

quote:ccording to the study, at the end of the first mile, the even-paced runners were at only 78 percent of their VO2 max, an effort level more akin to a tempo run than a 5-K race--below their potential. The three-percent and six-percent faster starts put the subjects at 82 and 83 percent of VO2 max after the first mile, which is closer to the intensity you'd expect from an experienced runner racing the first mile of a 5-K.

I think it's a pretty valid study; it's a small, nonrandom sample, but others could easily replicate it for comparison. It can also only be generalized to a small group of people -- probably newer runners who race below their potential (I think that's me a lot of the time, being too conservative), and likely people falling in a similar time range. (Those girls all had PRs between 18 and 21 minutes, so very close to most of us.)

That says it all. Just for starters the sample size is at least 50 times too small to have any meaning whatsoever. This is further evidence of why Runner's World has been nicknamed "Joggers World" by serious runners. It boggles the mind just how many people have been influenced by this article.

posted Jun-17-2007 08:56 AM
Jim, tflightfoot, MichiganFlyer, thanks for your kind words. It was surprisingly exciting for me to break 20, considering that I did it routinely in races and tempo runs years ago.

Tflightfoot nice race on a tough day. I believe that to run under 20 in the conditions you described would require a fitness level capable of producing something in the low 19's under ideal circumstances. A week before the race I described, I ran a 5K on a warm, humid day, that had a significant hill just after the start. My time that day was a minute slower, so I think your sub-20 is in range.

Has anyone on this thread considered trying a track race?As MF notes, there is the advantage of a flat course and constant feedback on pace. I'm thinking about trying one for the first time in many years. I can remember races where apack of us were on similar pace, and I could just relax and cruise along for a few laps without having to expend much mental energy maintaining pace.

Regarding my warmup, I generally jog for 12-15 minutes. In the past, after that I would stretch for 5-10 minutes. For the past year, however, I have been using a series of dynamic activation exercises that I got from the book "Run Strong," edited by Kevin Beck. That book maintains that stretching causes muscles to be temporarily weaker, hence less able to perform to their maximum capability. (Maybe Tinman can comment on the science on that.) The dynamic activation routine seems to prepare my body to run hard (I also do it before workouts), and seems to help mentally to snap me out of the lull of jogging/easy running. At that point, I'll change into my racing shoes, do a few strides, and if I have sufficient time, perhaps run a minute or two at race pace.

Jim, my interval workouts are generally longer and slower than the one I described. I'll usually only do the 10 x 500 toprepare me mentally when I'm deep into my racing season.(I plan to just run another race or two before taking a short break in preparation for summer base training for fall XC.)Not sure if my timing on that (the workout) is correct or not.Again, perhaps Tinman can comment.

That says it all. Just for starters the sample size is at least 50 times too small to have any meaning whatsoever. This is further evidence of why Runner's World has been nicknamed "Joggers World" by serious runners. It boggles the mind just how many people have been influenced by this article.

I was skeptical too but I will argue the point just so we can discuss it more. This is talking about the New Hampshire (college?) cross country team. So they are not elite runners but they are very good runners with times between 18-21 minutes. That would be like mens times between 16-18 minutes so these are quite good runners. Runners who are better than 99% of their peers.

I believe the article said all the runners who started out 3% and 6% faster finished with faster times then those who tried to pace even miles. Thats 11 for 11. Now the problem I think the trial was run on a treadmill which forces the 3% faster and 6% faster pace. If they tried it in a road/course race they may not have known how to pace the 1st mile correctly and had speed ups/ slow downs which would have taken too much energy to keep up the pace in the last 2 miles.

I've been lurking in this thread for ever. I'm finally ready to start working seriously on improving my 5K time. Usually I run much longer races and have done 5K's as a bit of an afterthought. My PR was 22:47 which was set during training for ultras, so I've felt that I have it in my to run sub-20 if I were to train specifically for a 5K race.

So to kick things off for the summer, I did a 5K this morning. I surprised myself by demolishing my PR by almost a full minute, 21:48 chip and 21:51 gun. I'm on cloud nine right now to say the least. I'm especially happy that my first 2.5km spilt was only about 10 seconds faster than the second half.

I have another race coming up in two weeks, then another in the first week of August. After that I'm going to do a bit more long slow running (I might run an ultra in September), then get back into 5K's for the rest of the fall and for all of next year.

The link you posted is to the runner'sworld link, so it really doesn't have the science journal article to review. I'd like to see that. If anyone has a copy, send it to my email address please: runfastcoach@gmail.com

About pacing, it takes practice and self-knowledge. Most experienced racers know what their average pace should feel like and can go out and run that pace fairly closely. But, some people simply have trouble running even pace because THEY NEVER PRACTICE IT ENOUGH.

I once coached a gal who was constantly going out in 5:50 at the mile, yet she ran 19:30 or more each race. I pulled her aside from her team mates to ask her if she would please go out slower. She did not. So, I made a team challenge - anyone who runs less than 2 seconds variance for their average lap (per 400m) and comes within 2% of their p.r. time will get a 10 dollar gift certificate at TCBY - The Country's Best Yogurt - shop.

Needless to say, the gals were hyped about it. They loved TCBY! I spent 80 dollars that Saturday on gift certificates. To be honest, I had to tap my savings to do it. I was a simple graduate student on a limited income at the time.

The gal I referred to ran 1:32, plus or minute 1.6 seconds the whole way (she tagged onto another gal who was a good pacer) and ran a p.r. of 19:13. She told me afterward that she could have run faster, but the slower pace held her back. Uhm, I said, "You just ran a p.r. by 17 seconds, going out nearly 16 seconds slower the first mile than you have all season. Don't you see the connection?" She did not!

Again, some runners need practice at running their FASTEST EVEN PACE. Some people who try it for the first time end up running too slowly. They don't know what it should feel like - pace or effort. That may very well be the case for those gals who were the subjects for the study.

Again, some runners need practice at running their FASTEST EVEN PACE. Some people who try it for the first time end up running too slowly. They don't know what it should feel like - pace or effort. That may very well be the case for those gals who were the subjects for the study.

Regards,

Tinman

Tinman -

you hit the nail on the head here.

The only problem with the Runners World story is they neglected to summarize what you just did. These New Hampshire cross runners while in the top 1-2% of runners still did not know how to pace correctly. Let that be a lesson to us all to try and find the correct pace which will make us much better runners.

These runners ran 3-6% faster the 1st mile and had better 5k times. What this tells me is it is very harmful to go out too slow the 1st mile as your time will be worse than if you go out too fast the 1st mile.

So the key is not that difficult to find here. You already know your PR for a 5k (mine is 20:22). A few days ago I ran the 1st mile in 6:28 (20:03 5k pace and ended with a 20:27 final 5k pace). It is almost a given had I run a 6:32 first mile (20:15 five k pace) that I would have broken my 5k pr.

My next 5k attempt I will tone it down just a little from my 6:28 effort.

posted Jun-18-2007 09:35 AM
There have been many good posts over the last several days. Congratulations to everyone with those fast times.

MichiganFlyer2: good job on the solo, late night time trial. I like the way you have been experimenting with pacing. It seems a good way to figure out what can be done.OldXCguy: thanks for posting the results of your sub 20 5K – it is good to read about those. tflightfoot: nice time in tough conditions. It has been much hotter in your area than it has been in Maine.markc7: congrats - that is a huge improvement, good luck in those upcoming races.__________

Thanks to everyone who comment and give advice. I appreciate it.__________

My next 5K is on a wheel measured, but uncertified 5K the first week in August. I ran it in 2001 (21:59), 2002 (21:27), and then in 2006 (20:58) after not racing it for a few years. My goal will be 19:59 or better.

Over the years I've noticed that runners who do shorter intervals (like 400s) instead of longer intervals (like 1k to 2ks) have a much harder time running a steady, even pace the whole way in distance races. They go out too fast and then just "try to hang on."

Over the years I've noticed that runners who do shorter intervals (like 400s) instead of longer intervals (like 1k to 2ks) have a much harder time running a steady, even pace the whole way in distance races. They go out too fast and then just "try to hang on."

Sunday I ran my 90 minute run on the treadmill for the 3rd straight week. I managed 10.5 miles this week (after 9.33 and 10.1 the previous 2 attempts).

Today is my interval (speedwork) day. You are suggesting longer intervals which makes sense to me because 90 second quarters is not helping much in a 99 second quarter paced 5k run.

I just wonder if you are suggesting that I ran 5 X 1k at CV pace? The pace that is a little slower than 5k pace. This will make me faster? Are you sure? I would think I need a little running faster than 5k pace....??